NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Indyrod Starting to work myself through the "Unearthed Films" I purchased recently, I decided to start with this interesting little take on a cross between "Man Bites Dog" and "Hard Candy". Basically a man picks up a woman at a bar, and they go back to her place. Big mistake. After passing out from a drugged drink, he wakes up finding himself strapped in a dentist chair, with this gorgeous woman ready to do as she pleases to him. The movie concentrates a lot on dialog and judgment regarding philosophical questions about society. Oh, and I might mention torture on her new guinea pig. The story takes a few twists and turns, but in the end, I found it very interesting despite the very low budget, the acting is top notch and the whole idea of the story pretty intriguing. It's nothing special, but a strange little film that "Unearthed" made available to people like me that like this sort of stuff.

TheOtherFool The main reason for me to rent this was the dvd-box, which stated it was the British answer to Man Bites Dog (C'est Arrive Pres De Chez Vous), probably a top 100 film of mine. Although Boy Meets Girl bears in fact little resemblance to it (it's more of a cross between Oodishon and Misery), it wasn't a complete waste.A man, although married, meets a girl in a bar and goes home with her. There he's drugged up and when he awakes, finds himself strapped to a dentist chair.Two women keep him there, with the eventual means of killing him, while meanwhile questioning him. All sorts of subjects are discussed, each one has it's own 'chapter' in the movie. While talking the women torture him as well. I won't go into it too deeply, but their means include a microwave, maggets and a dildo.The problem this movie has is keeping things interesting, so at like 3/4 of the film we see a silly escape attempt to keep us awake. Not very convincing, that was. Also at the end of the film you feel like: so what does it all mean, where does this lead us? If going back to Man Bites Dog, that movie had more of a story to tell, and actually had an ending.Too bad as it's not uninteresting what the makers try to do, but in the end they do kinda fail... 5/10.

lillyq Very nice not to be humoured or patronized for a change, a real grown up movie with real issues, bad language and fast and wild dialogue. This film, recommended by a colleague was a revelation; a reminder of what cinema should be about, intellectually stimulating and provocative, challenging at every moment, compulsory and essential viewing, nine out of ten.

sad-10 I felt obliged to watch this movie, it had such a reputation. I finally just got hold of it on DVD, released in the UK after several years of being banned on DVD/Video, uncut in cinemas. Considering it supposedly micro low budget it was considerably better than I expected. The script was superbly written (the script full script is a DVD extra, when played in a DVD Rom it can be printed)and the performances excellent. The film is very dark, probably one of the darkest films I've ever seen, on a par with Mac Naughtons Henry portrait of a serial killer. Like Henry the question is begged one would anyone want to make a film so bleak and disgusting? What was the motivation for the Director to write such a nihilistic work. Brady in his Director's commentary explains that the political context at the time in the UK was such that films that glamorized violence(when violence was perceived to be entertaining) were being passed by the censors and any films that showed realistic violence, pain, suffering etc were perceived by the censors to be dangerous and potentially damaging viewing material and were subsequently immediately banned. Brady said that his motivation for making Boy Meets Girl was to provoke and challenge the censors into a public clarification of this problem and arguing that irreparable damage was being done to the sensibilities of British audiences in that they were slowly and insidiously being desensitised to violence by watching films where the pace of the narrative never allowed the time to portray or dwell on the subsequent casual effects of violence and the repercuations to the whole community that surrounds an individual that has experienced an act of violence. Brady argued that the way films were being edited, to conform to censorship guidelines, was more likely to lead to potential dysfunctional behaviour by viewers of films with violent content. I now fully understand what the furore in the press when Boy Meets Girl was originally released. The polices of the British censors have changed in the last couple of years and the majority of their previous decisions made under there old management reversed. Brady seems to have been proved right. The board was in deed in trying to protect British viewers from corruption were in truth, doing more harm than good and in reality desentising British audiences to violence. The looby that Brady was a leading advocate of and the arguments that he was so often crucified for by conservative critics has indeed proven to be the vanguard of an essential and important movement towards social change, possibly the most important change in the viewing habits in the latter part of the last century. By understanding the problem in context one can understand why Boy Meets Girl was made. A brave and important film - to quote one reviewer. At times very hard to watch, but powerful essential viewing. Recommended.